I don't really understand why people think that a fully rotated jump with a fall gets so much more credit than an underrotated one anyway. If you do a fully rotated 3Loop with a fall, you'll likely get -3GOE, with another -1.0 deduction, so it comes to a total of 1.0. Whereas an underrotated 3Loop will score 1.5, and with the new rules it might score even higher.

But that's not the point I want to make here. My point is that the whole downgrade thing is meant to REWARD the good jumpers as much as to punish those who are not so good. If they risk a difficult jump and do succeed, they can get a big lead over those who don't - as they rightfully should, IMO. So I see it as an incentive for skaters to perfect their jumping techniques, rather than a threat to take it out of their programs altogether.

I give up on this whole UR argument thing. I think it best to just agree to disagree. I despise UR's jumps and will never want them to be given higher marks than someone who actually completes a triple jump. Sorry.

Sorry, BoP, but I can't take anything you point out about URs seriously anymore since you came up with that whole, "Let's establish a point system for skaters who complete 2.648463 rotations." Seriously? I actually that you were joking at first.

I did think you had a point about spins being worth more though. I think that's about the only thing we agree on.

I give up on this whole UR argument thing. I think it best to just agree to disagree. I despise UR's jumps and will never want them to be given higher marks than someone who actually completes a triple jump. Sorry.

Well if you wish to ignore the facts, okay. You can feel free to continue and define jumps with horrible landings as "completed triple jumps."

Originally Posted by skatingbc

Sorry, BoP, but I can't take anything you point out about URs seriously anymore since you came up with that whole, "Let's establish a point system for skaters who complete 2.648463 rotations." Seriously? I actually that you were joking at first.

Well, again, I don't feel that you understand. I have provided numerous examples and entertained every idea you've come up with, but you continue to ignore the arguments I have laid out (very telling how you completely ignored the example of Sasha's jump vs. Ashley's jump) and instead use the fallback that everyone uses in a debate when they are losing - "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree". I mean, really?

The system of giving underrotated jumps their own values would be very easy. They are already denoted in the protocols.

Look at all of the different levels and classifications for spins. Every couple rotations worth of a "difficult variation" counts for something.

It makes little sense that there should be no middle ground between a Double and a Triple jump, when there is a huge margin of difference between the two. Ignoring the inherent middle ground creates far too much of a mathematical deviation and, on top of that, it places too much power in the technical specialist's hands. Human error happens and bad calls can, have, and will be made.

CoP is an exacting system where everything counts. If you do far more than a Double Jump, you should be given credit for more than a Double Jump. An underrotated Triple = at least 1/2 more of a rotation than a Double. It shows a more significant attempt at doing a Triple than a Double does.

You say establishing a point system is ridiculous, but that's exactly what CoP is. If this is the system we are working with, it needs to be perfected.

I guess I'm on the fence on this one...I still think a fall should be redefined as a complete loss of balance (both hands down on the ice, or a knee or butt on the ice) and 0 points be given for that attempt (or even points taken away, but I guess the system doesn't work like that). I'd sooner see that happen than the downgrade rule modified.

Isn't a two footed-landing technically underrotated, or am I way off base (regarding BoP's example)?

No, I have competed under the IJS against a skater who rotated a jump, landed backwards on 2 feet, got complete credit for the jump and a -2 GOE. If the feet are still together and the free foot hits down first or both feet hit simultaneously, it will typically be called UR because the way tight feet are in a jump will mean it is technically under-rotated (the free foot will be more than 90 degrees UR).

Seriously, I see everyone is ignoring BoP's visual example who are on the UR scored correctly team. Anyone?!

That is the part of your POV that I am struggling to understand. If a skater falls on the landing, do you count that as completing a triple jump?

I guess we have a different definition of what "completing" means.

Well if the rotation is completed, then the TRIPLE part of the jump is completed.

Many people here talk about how errors mar a program for them and decrease their enjoyment of it. I've never really understood that. Things like skater's stepping out of jumps and touching the ice don't really bother me. URs bother me and are fairly obvious for me to see. Watching skaters underrotate jump after jump after jumps decreases my enjoyment of their program. I understand why people don't think URs should penalized as harshly as they are. I'm just not of the same opinion.

Looking at Ashley's Flip, without knowing it was downgraded, you probably would not have even felt anything was wrong with the jump.

I should actually put together a montage of jumps that have been downgraded, mixed in with jumps that had close landings but weren't downgraded, and see how accurately you can decipher which ones were which. Everyone would probably fail this because of the variances between tech specialists and because of how there is sometimes no difference at all between the jumps and it simply comes down to what the tech specialist feels like at that moment.

Any coach, judge, skater, and objective skating fan would classify Ashley's Flip as the more successful one.

Sasha's Flip had no more rotation that Ashley's. It could have been downgraded if the tech panel really wanted to.

If you legitimize UR as you suggest and give in-between points,
skaters who are not quite capable of clean triple jumps or 3-3 combo will be practicing under-rotation and doing them on purpose in competition.

I've talked about this before and it is simply not true. If a skater tries to do that, it will affect their landings and they won't gain any extra points.

I don't know on what grounds you're making this claim,
but you're downright wrong.

Under-rotating is considered borderline cheating.
In fact, ISU blatantly calls UR "cheated jump" in their technical handbook, which means that it can very well be done with design and intent.

Any underrotated jump is still an actual figure skating move. It is simply an easier version of said element.

Originally Posted by Blades of Passion

Some underrotated jumps even look pleasing to the eye still.

Originally Posted by Blades of Passion

If a skater tries to do that, it will affect their landings and they won't gain any extra points.

So what you're saying is:

"An under-rotated triple loop is a move that's easier than a triple loop, and it can look pleasing to the eye.
However, a skater cannot TRY to do it becasue it will affect his/her landing.
It's a jump that can only be performed properly by accident."

Obviously, that doesn't even make sense to yourself, does it?

Even if what you're saying is true,
it doesn't make any sense because
you want to create a new element that a skater can't practice, can't attempt, and can only be done by accident?

What kind of an element is THAT?

Originally Posted by Blades of Passion

.
The difference between a "real" Triple and an underrotated Triple can be almost nothing. A few degrees of rotation.

Again, you're wrong.
A jump is downgraded when a skater under-rotates by 90 degrees or more.
I'm sure you agree that 90 out of 360 (25%) is not "a few degrees".

*********************

If your argument is that skaters should be more heavily penalized for putting their hand(s) down or doing two-foot landings because you consider them to be greater failures than UR, then I might (not agree but) understand.

But suggesting that judges should give an UR triple jump points between a double and a triple is simply outrageous.
.

A jump is downgraded when a skater under-rotates by 90 degrees or more. I'm sure you agree that 90 out of 360 (25%) is not "a few degrees".

I think what Blades of Passion is referring to is the current rule that says if you underrotate by 89 degress you get full credit for a triple, but if you underrotate by 91 degrees, then you only get credit for a double.

To me, the question is one of proportion among the three stages of the jump. The entry/take-off, the rotations in the air, and the landing. Messing up on any of the three should call for evenhanded penalties.

If we want to be hard-nosed and say that an underroated triple is not a triple, then we should be consistent and say that a Lutz off the wrong edge is not a Lutz, and a jump that is not landed satisfactorily is not really anything at all. (Anyone can jump into the air. It's the coming down part that distinguishes good skating. )

I think what Blades of Passion is referring to is the current rule that says if you underrotate by 89 degress you get full credit for a triple, but if you underrotate by 91 degrees, then you only get credit for a double.

To me, the question is one of proportion among the three stages of the jump. The entry/take-off, the rotations in the air, and the landing. Messing up on any of the three should call for evenhanded penalties.

If we want to be hard-nosed and say that an underroated triple is not a triple, then we should be consistent and say that a Lutz off the wrong edge is not a Lutz, and a jump that is not landed satisfactorily is not really anything at all. (Anyone can jump into the air. It's the coming down part that distinguishes good skating. )

Couldn't agree more... and while we're at it - why oh why can't we adjust the point value for a fall on a jump? The way I look at it is simple: you fall - no points. Now THAT would be a change worth having and would up the ante on the importance of technically difficult, clean skating.